In general I see removing the second sentence as a no-op. I don't
think it adds
nor do I think it removes clarity in either case.
Having said that, unnecessary text is just that, and, if removing it
is a no-op, it
is unnecessary text.
Owen
On Dec 4, 2009, at 9:46 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> Stephen Woodrow wrote:
>> May I suggest a clarification of the language here:
>>> This reduction does not apply to resources received via section
>>> 8.3. An
>>> organization receiving a transfer under section 8.3 may continue to
>>> request up to a 12 month supply of IP addresses.
>> To me, the first sentence is perfectly clear, while the second
>> sentence adds confusion due to the fact that a request may be for 3
>> or
>> 12 months, depending on the state of the IANA free pool. Can the
>> second sentence be deleted or otherwise adjusted to reflect the
>> intent
>> as clearly described in the rationale below?
>> The two sentences in question were taken directly from the original
> Draft Policy that was reviewed by staff and presented at ARIN XXIV.
> So this part of the text hasn't changed since Dearborn. But, it did
> get moved around a little though.
>> Personally, I think it is clear, but I wrote it. So, I'm probably
> not the best judge. What do others think?
>> Just to be clear on the intent, this relates to Transfers to
> Specified Recipients per NRPM section 8.3. In current policy without
> the addition of 2009-8, a recipient of a transfer can receive up to
> a 12 month supply of IP addresses. The intended result with 2009-8
> applied is for a recipient of a transfer to continue to receive up
> to a 12 month supply a 12 month supply of IP addresses. The
> reduction to a 3 month supply is intended only for allocations from
> the ARIN free pool, not transfers.
>>>>> Rationale:
>> ...
>>> This policy is intended to be independent of other policies or
>>> proposals
>>> to reserve address space for IPv6 transition or other purposes. It
>>> is
>>> not intended to limit Transfers to Specified Recipients per
>>> section 8.3
>>> of the NRPM.
>> Otherwise, I support this draft.
>> --Steve
>> Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it.
>> So, now I need additional feedback from others on the clarity of
> this part of the text.
>> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.